Discipline includes $145,000 charge
A North Woods lawyer who court records say maintained a sexual relationship with his mentally disturbed client, then tried to intimidate her family and legal officials into not bringing charges over his misconduct, has been suspended from practice for almost five years.
Frederick J. Voss of Rhinelander also was ordered to pay more than $145,000 in costs to the lawyer discipline system, a figure the Supreme Court called "staggering" but was mostly due to Voss' aggressive litigation of the matter.
The state Supreme Court announced the discipline Wednesday in an opinion that describes how vulnerable Voss' former client was, and details how Voss exploited her situation. The court said it considered revoking Voss' license.
Voss said Wednesday he doesn't agree with the discipline but said he can't comment because the underlying materials in his case have been sealed.
According to the opinion:
Voss, 57, was appointed by the public defender to represent the woman, now 45, in a criminal case in 1996, went on to represent her in other criminal, civil and mental health commitments through 2003, and assisted her in non-court matters as well. He was even the payee for her Supplemental Security Income benefits.
From the early 2000s to the middle of 2006, they had a sexual relationship. In 2001, the woman told a therapist, who notified the Office of Lawyer Regulation, but the woman would not pursue a complaint at that time.
The woman told another therapist in July 2006, after a long period of not having sex with Voss, that he asked her on a car ride, took her to a motel and assaulted her.
Sheriff's deputies investigated and referred the case to prosecutors, who never filed charges. At the same time, the opinion explains, Voss began a campaign to get the woman to recant. He contacted her family and threatened that if the case went to trial, a lot of damaging information about her would get mentioned.
Voss sent unsolicited records to two circuit court judges, arguing there was no merit to possible criminal charges, and attached records of the woman's sexual history.
In November, he called the woman at the mental institution where she was housed and told her she should stay there if she wanted to remain protected.
Voss was never charged in relation to the July 2006 claim. But in January 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation hit Voss with six counts of professional misconduct. In his response, Voss said he never had sexwith the woman while acting as her attorney. At a subsequent hearing in the case, he took the 5th Amendment in response to questions about whether he had sex with the woman on certain dates, and denied relations on some other dates.
Voss contended that he alone determined when the attorney-client relationship existed.
"The OLR said this is a self-serving interpretation of the Supreme Court rules and in this fact situation, it is particularly egregious and predatory," according to the opinion.
In a post-trial brief, Voss stated that the woman wanted to be in the relationship.
By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel
Source......
Frederick J. Voss of Rhinelander also was ordered to pay more than $145,000 in costs to the lawyer discipline system, a figure the Supreme Court called "staggering" but was mostly due to Voss' aggressive litigation of the matter.
The state Supreme Court announced the discipline Wednesday in an opinion that describes how vulnerable Voss' former client was, and details how Voss exploited her situation. The court said it considered revoking Voss' license.
Voss said Wednesday he doesn't agree with the discipline but said he can't comment because the underlying materials in his case have been sealed.
According to the opinion:
Voss, 57, was appointed by the public defender to represent the woman, now 45, in a criminal case in 1996, went on to represent her in other criminal, civil and mental health commitments through 2003, and assisted her in non-court matters as well. He was even the payee for her Supplemental Security Income benefits.
From the early 2000s to the middle of 2006, they had a sexual relationship. In 2001, the woman told a therapist, who notified the Office of Lawyer Regulation, but the woman would not pursue a complaint at that time.
The woman told another therapist in July 2006, after a long period of not having sex with Voss, that he asked her on a car ride, took her to a motel and assaulted her.
Sheriff's deputies investigated and referred the case to prosecutors, who never filed charges. At the same time, the opinion explains, Voss began a campaign to get the woman to recant. He contacted her family and threatened that if the case went to trial, a lot of damaging information about her would get mentioned.
Voss sent unsolicited records to two circuit court judges, arguing there was no merit to possible criminal charges, and attached records of the woman's sexual history.
In November, he called the woman at the mental institution where she was housed and told her she should stay there if she wanted to remain protected.
Voss was never charged in relation to the July 2006 claim. But in January 2008, the Office of Lawyer Regulation hit Voss with six counts of professional misconduct. In his response, Voss said he never had sexwith the woman while acting as her attorney. At a subsequent hearing in the case, he took the 5th Amendment in response to questions about whether he had sex with the woman on certain dates, and denied relations on some other dates.
Voss contended that he alone determined when the attorney-client relationship existed.
"The OLR said this is a self-serving interpretation of the Supreme Court rules and in this fact situation, it is particularly egregious and predatory," according to the opinion.
In a post-trial brief, Voss stated that the woman wanted to be in the relationship.
By Bruce Vielmetti of the Journal Sentinel
Source......
No comments:
Post a Comment
We Love To Hear From You.